Presumably Mr. Van Knapp is having a good laugh with both articles — which leads one to think that he does think dividend investors are low on the food chain — either that, or he's a bi-polar twit-brain.

4. Dividends are boring

This is something to dislike? Breathing's boring.

Scratch item 4.

6. Dividends are taxed

It is common to hear the phrase, "dividends are taxed twice." What this refers to is that the corporation was taxed on its earnings (from which dividends are paid), and then the same money is taxed again to you when it is distributed as a dividend. Many investors feel that such double taxation is unfair, and that it renders dividend distributions an inefficient use of corporate profits.

Yep, when you receive money, most of the time you have to pay tax on it. Everytime money changes hands, there is usually a tax levied, which is why there's so little credence to the complaint that dividends are taxed twice, dividends are just money changing hands.

If paying a tax on money coming your way is something to dislike then perhaps the Tea Party, or worse, is in your future.

Scratch item 6.

7. Slower growing company

Some state that this is an inevitable effect of the payment of dividends. The reasoning goes that the payment of dividends is actually a wasteful use of corporate profits. If the money were retained (rather than distributed as dividends), it could be invested in corporate growth, efficiency projects, new product development, accretive acquisitions, or even to buy back shares.

Therefore, it is in shareholders' long-term interest for a company not to pay dividends but rather to plow all profits back into growth and improvement. Dividend-paying companies forego growth opportunities by distributing some of their profits as dividends.

Smart companies pay dividends because the returns they can get on capital reinvested in their businesses don't justify ploughing all their money back into them. In a lot of instances it's just not necessary and often companies that do it anyway fritter it away by building themselves lavish headquarters, feathering their nests in other ways, and making ill-considered and ego driven acquisitions.

As for buying back shares, there's a time and place for everything (as the adage goes). It only makes sense to buy back shares when they are on sale. Many companies foolishly buy back shares when they are, in effect, paying a $1.50 to buy a dollar. Even worse share buybacks are often merely a slight of hand designed to distract attention from constantly vesting insider stock options.

Scratch item 7.

8. Behavioral changes

• Dividend investors tend to think that just because a company has paid dividends in the past[…]

• Dividend investors are prone to construct back-tests of portfolios that did not exist[…]

• Dividend growth investors' enthusiasm has been seen to lead to alarming behaviors[…]

• Many dividend growth investors have been observed to believe they have found a "free lunch" […]

• "The dividend-true-believers may pay lip-service to analyzing company fundamentals, when challenged, but their statements at other times prove they ignore future economic projections."

• Many dividend growth investors, however, do pick individual stocks and come to believe that they can select stocks that are "better" than others.

• Most dividend growth investors believe that they are above average, which of course is impossible.

• "When people start investing in dividend stocks, they automatically gravitate to the high-yield stocks."

• It has been observed that dividend investing is suitable for those with weak investing skills. Such weakness, it may be surmised, results from some of the other behaviors already mentioned, such as complacency, recency bias, survivorship bias, yield chasing, and herding, all of which impede further learning.

OK, if you invest in stocks that pay a dividend there's a good chance, that if you are not already, you are likely to become complacent and dimwitted. Oh, and arrogant (Most dividend growth investors believe that they are above average).

Scratch item 8.

11. Non-compounding ((I))

Some dividend growth investors take their dividends as cash and spend them.

Something to dislike about dividends, you can spend them?! A significant portion of investors who concentrate on dividend paying stocks do so to generate income. Mr. Knapp seems to think that this is a very bad idea.

Scratch item 11.

12. Stock prices drop by the amount of the dividend

Because of this price adjustment, shareholders who hold on straight through see the price of their stock lowered by the amount of the dividend. So they do not "profit" at all from the dividend, as the market value of the shares has been reduced by the exact amount of the dividend they receive. Since the dividend then gets taxed as income to them, they are worse off than if the company had simply retained the money.

OK, this is as idiotic as "dividends are boring." Shareholders only don't benefit from the dividend if they chose to sell their share at the moment the stock price retreats when a dividend is paid. But, as Mr. Knapp has already noted, investing in dividend stocks leads to "behavioral changes" so presumably there is a long line of dividend stock investors lining up to sell shares the moment a dividend is paid.

Scratch item 12.

There are pitfalls to be avoided in investing in dividend paying stocks, but this author seems incapable of writing a balanced article on the pros and cons. Mostly, Seeking Alfa is a waste of time.

David Van Knapp may not be your cup of tea, but he is out there...in the arena....sharing tons about his approach and portfolio....the good, the bad and the ugly. Would that more people were more giving/sharing like him...even if he's not up to your standards.

I've never come across him before. I tend not to look at SeekingAlfa. However, based on these two articles I'm not inclined to look at anything else that he's "sharing."

Would that more people were more giving/sharing like him...even if he's not up to your standards

Murph. This is one of your favorite rejoinders. But, when you put yourself out there it's better not to be on a soap box; better to be part of a debate. And Seeking Alfa is a bit of a soap box for self-appointed experts. This format is better, each post/participant in a thread has equality.

Presumably Mr. Van Knapp is having a good laugh with both articles — which leads one to think that he does think dividend investors are low on the food chain — either that, or he's a bi-polar twit-brain.

He is actually quite smart, he is being paid to write such drivel. He earned $0.03 just from the three of us so far, and a whole lot more from the 186,044 subscribers:

About this articleEmailed to: 186,044 people who get Dividends & Income daily.Author payment: $0.01 per page view, with minimum guarantee of $100 for Pro articles and $500 for Alpha-Rich Pro articles plus free access to Seeking Alpha Pro.

Excuse me but I see no reason to talk this man down. Surely there are better ways to spend our time. He is obviously sharing some popular views on divi stocks, read the discussion that follows. A person could do much worse than read his articles and comments in my view.

I find that most people are a combination of good and bad....right and wrong...with no one person having a monopoly on truth. Further, what is "right" for one person's portfolio/investing style may not be for another, given differing financial circumstances, goals and risk tolerances.

Thus, with any author....here, Alpha or anywhere else...I generally find that I agree with some of what they opine, but rarely all. It's my job to decide what is right for me.

David Van Knapp is an "amateur" investor....just like me and most here...and having read a number of his articles, I find that I usually gain something from them and/or the exchanges/comments that follow.

I find that most people are a combination of good and bad....right and wrong...with no one person having a monopoly on truth.

Murph,

I agree that "most people are a combination of good and bad....right and wrong...", with the qualifier: to a greater or lesser extent.

Most people don't come to investment message boards for philosophical discussions about right, wrong, and truth. Therefore let's substitute the word truth with the word fact.

Truth is subjective, facts are objective. It's erroneous and incomplete facts that I find fault with in Van Knapp's two articles. All you can gain from erroneous facts is misinformation and if you find your own truths this way you have been misled.

Whatever the intention of Van Knapp, his two articles contain many huge generalizations that all but novice investors would recognize as such. I think it's reasonable to assume that a large percentage of his readers are novice investors that might be confused and misled. Likewise, some of the readers of this board are likely novice investors who might be confused and misled too. Given this, I would think that as "Home Fool" it would behoove you to be looking out for them!

Regardless of whether or not the articles were written "tongue in cheek" in my opinion, both articles are wrong-headed and misleading (if taken at face value) even if not intentionally so. Clearly, you have a different opinion but I am at odds to understand why. To approximately quote the late Mayor Koch: I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

I'm sorry you have an issue… but I don't think pointing out demonstrative discrepancies in any investors facts, figures, or conclusions is something that merits a high-minded rebuke, quite the opposite.

That was a mistake made in the heat of the moment. For which, I appologize.

It was not my intention that this thread should develop into something acrimonious. My intention was only to throw some light on what, in my opinion, were flaws in Van Knapp's two articles, which you either agree with, or you don't.

I'd actually like to hear your 'last words' on this. Kelbon laid out his thoughts and you said that "having read a number of his [David Van Knapp's] articles, I find that I usually gain something from them and/or the exchanges/comments that follow."

And, as a Fool, I always welcome all points of view...that's how we learn. My issue was "how" you said what you said...not your right to say it, nor necessarily the basic content of what you said.

Murph,

I responded only to the content of the articles by Van Knapp. Clearly, you have had nothing to say of any specificity about my observations to the content of those articles. Therefore, there was no need for you to respond to me, personally, at all.

As you felt that you needed to respond (presumably because you provided the links) it would have been more appropriate to respond to my observations rather than what you perceive as my tone.

If you don't like my tone, or what I have to contribute, put me on ignore. But perhaps you will think about contributing something with a little more substance beyond providing links with only perfunctory comments and complaining about the way people say things rather than what they say.

I wasn't going to bring this up. However, as you have, let me just say that it's my opinion that your posts addressed to me on this subject are redundant. As you say we've had similar exchanges elsewhere, so why would you want to get into it yet again? The only logical explanation is that you are trying to put the cat amongst the pigeons on this board too. Why? I have no idea, but no one else on this board had, to date, complained about my style, but it seems to be your intention to encourage people to see things your way and sow seeds of discontent. This, I assume, is diametrically opposed to how your employers expect you to conduct yourself, quote: Home Fools, as designated by the icon, expand beyond the role of Welcome Guides by engaging and enriching the discussions. These Home Fools encourage high quality discussions; help maintain a welcome environment for all posters, and post interesting content.

If you do indeed think me "a VERY bright Fool, with lots to offer" why not focus on what it is I have to offer rather than taking umbrage and berating me (yet again) for my style?

As for your out-of-context list of my comments, for instance: "OK, this is idiotic." I did think his comment idiotic, but apparently you think it unacceptable or distasteful to say so. Perhaps you would like me to apologize for my opinion? Well it was my honest opinion and I have every right to express it. Censorship isn't acceptable to me and it shouldn't be acceptable to anyone who participates in this forum either. Again, I urge you to just ignore me if I rub you the wrong way.

You have to be obtuse not to realize that other comments were made in a somewhat flippant manner. Referring to someone as a twit-brain, for instance, especially when it's not directed to them directly, falls very far from being malevolent.

...If paying a tax on money coming your way is something to dislike then perhaps the Tea Party, or worse, is in your future.

Bringing this up again is beneath you. It's been asked and answered. Do you want me to apologize for it a second time?

I thought these two articles wrong-headed and I said so. I addressed numerous specifics, point by point, contained therein in a manner that left no doubt as to my strong opinion, and more importantly, why I had it. If you can't deal with that and find words like twit-brain or idiotic offensive I really think it your problem, if this is really the case then again please just ignore my posts!

Early in my "corporate wars" career, I remember my absolute amazement that the "right answer"( the one that was backed by irrefutable facts, analysis and logical strategic thought ) didn't always win/get acted upon. I was a 20-something MBA from a good school and just didn't understand. Were these people stupid? Couldn't they see the obvious answer?

Finally an older officer talked to me about "style"...and that often times a good/"right" message can get lost in the medium of how it is presented. That is a lesson that I tried to learn and pass on to those who worked with/for me for decades, and has always held me and them in good stead.

Now, a discussion board is certainly not analogous to the business world, but I continue to think that greater civility is a plus for these boards ( and our increasingly confrontational society ).

That being said, I will make no more comments about your style ( unless, of course, they violate Fool's Rules ).

Excuse me but I see no reason to talk this man down. Surely there are better ways to spend our time. He is obviously sharing some popular views on divi stocks, read the discussion that follows. A person could do much worse than read his articles and comments in my view.

Right. He's sharing some popular views -- he doesn't buy into all of them himself. He can't; some of them contradict others. He says at the beginning of the article that some of the things said against dividend investing are false. And one -- the pseudo-complaint about dividend investing being "boring" is a joke on his part. He himself certainly has no "complaints" along these lines! (He states as much in the "comments" section below the article, where it may be clearer that he is joking about there being a problem with boringness ....)

It's clear his heart is actually the companion article that lists the 19 things to like about dividend investing.

Although you make a case for civility (or what you take for civility), truth be told, this is a standard you hold some to and not others.

In the past, you have excused and explained BuildMWell's sniping and condensing rhetoric claiming that his generosity in sharing his "method" trumped all else (Passion, high spirits, whatever). This divergence in your standards is easy explained by your personal relationship with the man as you have written that you spent significant time with him and his wife.

Let me be clear, you excused and supported a man who often times berated those that didn't agree with him or the verity and infallibility of his "method," as "idiots," "morons" and "suckers."

If you are going to have an opinion about what constitutes civility for you it would behoove you to be even-handed, something you have not been to date. Whether or not you agree or not with what a poster writes, or whether you like or know that poster, should not be a measure with which to measure whether you consider their style acceptable or not.

I'm all for civil discussion but an even playing field is, in my opinion, more important.

It's worth remembering that when an article appears there are no comments. They come later, if at all. And, sometimes they are not insightful, or even relevant. A good article stands on it's own merits without the need for further illumination or explanation.

In the past, you have excused and explained BuildMWell's sniping and condensing rhetoric claiming that his generosity in sharing his "method" trumped all else (Passion, high spirits, whatever).

If you worked for me and said this, I'd fire you. Pointing to someone else's behavior to justify your own bad behavior doesn't cut it. Murph has nailed you to perfection and obviously hit a nerve - smart guy, but often times a total horse's rear end. Arrogant as all get out. Most who frequent these boards would probably agree with that. Maybe we should conduct a poll?

A lot of wasted energy going on here. You guys want to come over to my house and we'll split some wood and dig up those 5 gal buckets of turnips I buried last fall (my root cellar)? I'll treat you to a turn at backing up to the woodstove to boot!soybeans?

It's worth remembering that when an article appears there are no comments. They come later, if at all. And, sometimes they are not insightful, or even relevant. A good article stands on it's own merits without the need for further illumination or explanation.

Right. He probably figured that the joke was so obvious that the readers would get it. But the comments show that some people completely missed it -- these comments probably fall in both categories: non-insightful and non-relevant.